Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Community college plansmade and abandoned

I was disappointed to read the article on community college enrollment challenges as submitted by Professor Hasan Rahim (“State must reverse community college enrollment decline,” Page A6, Jan. 11) which to me indicates there has been little or no progress since I came on board in 1998.

All of Rahim’s recommendations were certainly discussed administration after administration, semester after semester, during my time. I actually attended these meetings at San Jose City College and participated in the discussions.

Meetings were held with partnering high schools and agreements were made with UCs and CSUs. What happened to all that hard work?

With regard to the Master Plan for Education, at least one SJCC college president participated in a statewide committee to update the plan. Again, what happened to all that work?

Ten years into retirement, I could hardly believe what I read.

Isabel Mota MaciasModesto

CEQA is not the causeof housing crisis

Dan Walters’ scaremongering Jan. 8 column claims that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “stymie[s] high-density, multi-family projects” (“Environmental law’s misuse blocking housing brings calls for CEQA reform,” Page A9). Walters wields a big bullhorn, but he is sounding a false alarm. Walters never mentions that CEQA actually provides exemptions for such housing, while protecting disadvantaged communities, public health and the climate.

CEQA wisely makes government officials pause and think before approving large development projects. For example, in the UC Berkeley case Walters cites, CEQA required the university to consider alternative housing sites before paving over a historic public park and displacing current residents. That is just smart.

Californians need to know that those seeking to weaken CEQA in the name of housing are promoting arguments that independent experts have resoundingly refuted. High land and construction costs, local zoning and other factors, not CEQA, are the root causes of our housing crisis.

Gary PattonAdjunct professor, UC Santa CruzSanta Cruz

Politicians changingoffice should say so

Politicians should go all in if they seek a new office

Sandra Delvin [“Council replacement process lacks transparency,” Page A6, Jan. 10] brings up some of the shortcomings of the way members of San Jose City Council are appointed.

The two new members would be selected by people who never lived in District 8 and only one lived in District 10. We should change the law in California; any elected officeholder seeking another office must go all in. They must submit a resignation from their current office effective the end of the year no less than two months before the primary election date to be allowed on the primary ballot.

This would enable those who may be interested to jump in, but more importantly, this will ensure continued true representation of the people.

Laith NaamanSan Jose

Legislature must fixsolar payment plan

Utility companies won the jackpot on December 15, 2022, when the California Public Utilities Commission, presumably with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s blessing, passed NEM 3.0, which will force solar-generating households to sell at far below the market rate — 75% below current prices.

Solar has proven to lower electricity costs overall, so this poorly reasoned decision will only make electricity more expensive in the long run. Such a situation is only possible because utilities are given a monopoly in the electricity marketplace — we can buy from only them, rather than any neighbors who have themselves installed solar.

That means it is imperative that governments craft fair rate structures. And they have failed spectacularly with NEM 3.0.

If Newsom cares about his climate legacy, he’ll work with the California Legislature to pass a solar net metering policy that is actually aligned with energy economics and provides fair rates for all electricity consumers.

Jeremy PoindexterSan Mateo

Democrats could havecurtailed GOP concessions

Vanya Matzek (“Democrats wasted votes during speaker battle,” Page A8, Jan. 13) suggested that congressional Democrats wasted their votes during the election of the speaker and should have found a few Republicans willing to vote with them on a better Republican candidate than Kevin McCarthy.

Not a bad idea, but I don’t think there are any Republicans who would go along. But there is something Democrats could have done to improve the situation, and it would not have involved any Democrats voting for a Republican.

If only 10 Democrats abstained from the vote, Kevin McCarthy would have been elected speaker without having to make all those concessions to the far right. Would that have made him more willing to compromise with Democrats? Probably not, but we would not have had all those horrible rules he had to agree to in order to get those last few votes.

Merlin DorfmanLivermore